Search

Notes on the Debate between Dr William Craig and Dr Peter Slezak (Sydney Town Hall, 2002)

Is there a God?

Did Jesus really rise from the dead?

Is Christianity true?

These are some of the most important questions anyone can ever ask.

In this debate, two fine speakers address these issues as they debate the topic “Atheism versus Christianity – where does the evidence point?”

Dr William Craig is one of the foremost contemporary defenders of the Christian faith. He is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, California.

Dr Peter Slezak is a Senior Lecturer in the School of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of New South Wales. He teaches and speaks widely in the media of philosophy, science and religion.

Presented by St Barnabas Anglican Church Broadway, the debate was held in August 2002 in front of more than 2000 people in the Sydney Town Hall.

William Craig (For Christianity) - 20 mins

Two necessary questions in this debate need to be answered:

What good evidence is there that God exists?

What good evidence is there that God does not exist; that atheism is true?

The second question is left to the opposition in this debate.

Five points of evidence are given for the first question:

1. The origin of the universe:

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

Premise 2: The universe began to exist

Therefore the universe has a cause.

By necessity: The cause is a timeless, uncaused, personal agent who freely chooses to cause the universe.

2. The complex order of the universe.

There are only three possible explanations for the complexity in the universe:

Natural law

Chance.

Design.

Scientifically the first is not plausible (the universe could have been otherwise and still exist). The second is not probable (the chance of this complexity arising randomly is unthinkable). The third is possible and likely.

Premise 1: there are only three possibilities

Premise 2: Design is the only possible and likely explanation

Therefore the universe had a designer.

3. Objective moral values

Our argument is not must we believe in God to live moral lives. We’re not claiming we must. Nor, is our questions ‘can we recognise moral values without believing in God’. I think we can.

But our argument is, if God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist. On this point atheists agree.

But objective moral values do exist. The evidence for this is given.

Therefore, since objective moral values do exist, then God also exists.

4. The historical facts concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus

His life: Jesus showed divine authority to speak in God’s place.

His ministry of miracles and exorcisms support his claim.

His resurrection is a divine miracle that shows us that God exists.

There are three established historical facts that are best explained by the resurrection.

Jesus’ tomb was found empty

Appearances of Jesus as being alive after his death

The disciples came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus and came to willingness unto death for this belief.

Attempts to explain these facts away have been universally rejected. This therefore entails that God exists.

5. Immediate experience of God.

This is not an argument. Rather it is the claim that you can know God wholly apart from argument.

Dr Peter Slezak (For Atheism) - 20 mins

Dr Craig has not followed the logic of proof and disproof. ‘Evidence’ must be understood as scientists understand it. Therefore his question is misleading: There can be no proof or disproof of God’s existence, because God is not a mathematical theorem. The best you can do is point out the lack of evidence and conclude that the existence of God is not supported by what we observe scientifically.

This is the nature of all universal claims. No one has ever proved or disproved the existence of UFOs. But it is precisely the lack of evidence that makes us believe that they don’t exist.

1. Cosmological argument

Dr Craig’s argument relies on ones own ability to see common sense, though many of the established facts of the universe are not common sense, though they are true nonetheless (eg. Physics laws such as wave-particle duality of light)

Physics prevents a ‘cause’ for the universe because before the beginning of the universe there was nothing. That is, there was no before. Therefore there can be nothing before to cause the cause.

Dr Craig’s is rather talking about a ‘metaphysical’ cause, which is another way of saying there just must be something even though there can’t be something.

2. Design argument

Improbability is not always a good argument for design. In analogies such as the watch, it works. But you can’t use an analogy within the universe and apply it to the way the whole universe works. Nor can you trust your brain to infer anything simply from the unlikeliness of an event, unless you know something more in the background. The mere fact of the improbability is not enough. For that is the nature of improbability is not enough to conclude that it was not an accident.

E.g. A hand of total spades: It is just as probable as your usual mixed up hand. It’s just that the first is interesting. But so what?

The ones who survived in the war are the ones who get to tell the story. It is still luck, but the only reason they are there telling you their story is that someone was always going to win.

It is the imperfections that are the best evidence for evolution, not the perfections.

Why would an omnipotent God design imperfections?

3. The historicity of Jesus:

Human testimony is very unreliable.

It would be pretty perverse of God to give us rational skeptical minds and then expect us not to use them.

Dr William Craig (Christianity) - 12 mins

Question: what is the evidence for atheism?

Dr Slezak says the only evidence against God’s existence is the lack of evidence for God’s existence.

This is highly significant. It means he agrees that all of the traditional arguments for atheism fail (such as problem of evil etc). Therefore he claims that the only evidence for atheism is lack of evidence for God.

But absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

E.g. There is no positive evidence yet that no gold exists on Pluto – but this doesn’t mean that there is no gold on Pluto.

So when does lack of evidence mean evidence against something?

Lack of evidence for x, counts as positive evidence against x, only if in the case that x did exist then we should expect to see more evidence of x.

E.g. Absence of evidence for planet between earth and Venus. We would expect to see evidence, of course for this.

But if God exists, should we expect to see more evidence than the 5 things we’ve pointed out?

Obviously not.

He has to prove that it is highly probable that if God exists we should have more evidence that what we do. But this would be pure speculation.

Thus in the case of God the absence of evidence is not an argument against the existence of God.

What about the second question:

Origin of universe.

He agrees with the second premise.

Therefore he is forced to deny the first premise, that whatever begins to exist has a cause. By cause we mean whatever produces or brings into being it’s effect.

He doesn't refute this premise. He just asks, what reasons should we think this premise is true.

Being does not come from non-being

Something does not come from nothing.

The causal premise is universally accepted. The only reason to deny it is because this would lead you to a conclusion you don’t want to accept.

Big bang: yes it can’t have a natural cause.

But this doesn’t prohibit a supernatural cause.

Dr Peter Slezak (For Atheism) - 12 mins

Atheist doesn't say God does not exist categorically. Therefore proof is not necessarily.

What are the rules for metaphysics? How do we define ‘cause’? Physics causes cannot be metaphysically. Science is the only ground we have for assessing things. What’s the rational for going beyond science?

Now to the issue of:

Objective moral values

‘If you escape the social consequences, there is nothing really wrong with you raping somebody?’ in the absence of God.

The point is that we can share his intuition. But his appeal is simply to ‘what you think’. This shows that ‘yes’ we do all think that morals do exist. Yes we all do have strong moral convictions. But this doesn’t mean that they really do exist, just because we all feel they do.

They don’t have a cosmic status, as the Aztecs show, which cut out the hearts of others to please their gods!

In the Andromeda galaxy, our morals don’t exist.

Now to more on:

Jesus and miracles

Arguments for biblical miracles haven’t got any better. We don’t have to doubt the historicity. It’s not the facts that are in dispute. It’s the interpretation that is in dispute. Eg. Our interpretation might be ‘He was not dead’, ‘the disciples stole the body’.

It is not just the miraculous interpretation that is possible. And actually any other interpretation other than miraculous is more probable.

Dr William Craig (For Christianity) - 8 mins

Back to:

Objective moral values

Which premise does Dr Slezak deny?

Without God there is no basis for existence of morals, even though we feel they exist. He seems to agree with this!

If Martians came from Andromeda would we accept their other morality, even if they wanted to rape our women in order to reproduce?

He has no answer. ‘We humans feel it’s wrong, but so what?’ he says. We agree that the moral values don’t exist in the absence of God.

But we maintain that they really do exist. We are justified then to believe in the existence of God, in the same way we are justified to believe that physical objects exist.

Now more on:

Life, death, resurrection of Jesus.

Notice that he doesn't deny any of the actual historical facts.

What he tries to do is offer an alternative explanation of the facts, such as ‘The old apparent death theory’. It is universally rejected. Why?

Roman method of execution

Spear

Bleeding in tomb.

Even if he’d revived, tomb was sealed.

Even if he’d gotten out, his appearance wouldn’t have caused his disciples to worship him as the conqueror of death etc.

He says it’s a better argument of miracles. Any natural explanation is of course more probable than a natural resurrection. But that says nothing of a supernatural resurrection. It doesn’t make it improbable for a supernatural resurrection.

And he has not yet answered the question:

Why cannot we trust our experience of God as evidence for the existence of God?

Notice his huge shift in this debate:

He now admits the absence of evidence is not positive evidence that God doesn’t exist. He just says that ‘I don’t believe…’

That is not atheism. That is agnosticism.

So even if all my arguments are rejected we still end up on neutral ground, because the debate is about atheism.

Dr Peter Slezak (For Atheism) - 8 mins

Distinction: being agnostic is about not being sure which way to go. Atheism is being sure that there is no better way than to be sceptical; to be in confirmed disbelieve.

On the matter of

Personal experience

I don’t deny these. But they are not grounds for belief.

On the matter of:

Jesus

It is inconceivable that you cannot think of more naturalistic explanations than the miraculous one.

On the argument of:

Ethics

Dr Craig insists there’s nothing objective if God doesn't exist. But he want’s to call absolute values the objective ones. To do this first of all you need to have independent grounds first for the existence of God.

Now to more on the matter of

Logic (the logic of belief)

Dr Craig is himself skeptical about the existence of intelligent life being elsewhere. And this is the exact reason why we are skeptical about the existence of God.

Subscribe

Email

Follow

Christian Reflections

The Briefing

Phillip Jensen

Pete Woodcock & Cornerstone

I’m attracted to big ideas and new thoughts. Jesus himself was considered an astounding thinker in his time. But today we tend not to realize how our hopes in development, science and reform have nothing on the promises he made. About Christianity, we think the world of the twentieth-century is a different world. But it is about Christian things and the Christian religion that we should be turning our attention. Not only has Jesus changed our world already since the first Christmas and the first Easter, but he promises to do it further, radically further. I’m talking about more than the fact that Christian beliefs have shaped modern society [the reformation for example fueled the industrial revolution]. I also recognize the perception that Christian church attendance is in decline. But Christianity itself continues to grow. That’s because the Christian way is much more than Sunday attendance. What is Christianity and what is Christian or to put it precisely, ‘Christ’-like-living? This is not a silly question; particularly because of the way that our modern secular culture of Christmas-consumerism has clouded our clarity. That is one of many reasons why this site exists. Talking Christianity talks all about Christianity and about Christian thinking because actually what we need most in the twentieth-century it is a review of the basics of a Christ-centered view of the world. And, believe it or not, that makes our subject all about church too. That’s because, what is the Church? What actually is the church of God? Church is not a building or a meeting. The church is God’s people, his community united in Christ himself. That is, the church itself is the Christian people, all united together by common faith in Jesus. In that sense, this site is all about church because it is all about the Christian people. I hope by sharing Christian views about the world to give a window into the Christian view of the world; a window that I hope actually gives a view of Jesus, a view of Christ himself. The event of Christmas and the calendar tradition of Easter have become tools for marketers to fuel our commitment as consumers. It is a strange scenario in a secular society that swears no allegiance to the Lord himself and in fact more often than not today we only hear mention of Jesus Christ when someone in our workplaces or bus malls can find no other phrase more appropriate for a curse. Who is Jesus that his name today is heard in every corner of our world, on the lips of both those who bless one another and those who curse? Of course, the Christians call Jesus Christ by that title because they also call him the son of God, a phrase that is used not only by the Christian but by the Bible too; but what does that mean? But just as important in asking who is Jesus Christ is another related question, where is Jesus? And another more basic question might be what is Jesus; a question followed closely by who was Jesus when he came. That’s why this site talks all about Jesus, and not just about him, but also how Jesus has changed the world and will in fact change the world more fundamentally still. This is the message of the Gospel, the gospel of Jesus, or the good news of Christ Jesus. One of the central questions we ask on this site is both what is gospel and what is the gospel? How is the gospel message, that is very closely associated with the four gospels found in the beginning of the second section of the Bible, the New Testament, how is this good news of any significance for us today as modern people? One big difference is that it is a free gospel, unlike all the other gospels that exist in the world. The message at the heart for the Christians is a true story of the free gift of God’s forgiveness through a man like no other, Jesus. In the Holy Bible, as we open the pages of Scripture, we discover the facts of who this man was and who he is now, today. It will take some bible study. Of course we might ask which bible? As there are many gospels there are many bibles. The word bible means book, but the Christian book that has been called The Book is the collection of 66 books from the Scriptures of Israel (the Old Testament) and the collection of writings of the first Christians, which we have in the New Testament. Put together my many authors over hundreds of years across continents and cultures, it is the bibles view of itself is that it is the word of God to us even today. Who is God? Where do we find God? We in fact need to do little more than open up a book. But where in the bible do we find God, we might ask? Actually it is the message of the book as a whole that we have been describing as the gospel. Every part of the bible reveals God, as does the whole. So what is the Bible? In the Bible and by the Bible, God speaks of himself to us. Bible scripture and every bible verse together reveals God as we listen and understand what he has done in the past and what he has said about those things. That’s why this blog talks all about Bible and gives bible verses at every point. One of the biggest questions people ask typing in their search is help me find God. To find God the Bible says is like to find gold and with it silver and all types of costly stones as well. What is God? Surprisingly, the Bible in fact says that God Is. It’s more than he ‘just is’ but that is part of it. He is the only one who always is; the only I Am. Who is God? Part of the answer the Bible gives relates to the fact that God has revealed himself as the God of. He is the God of certain people, for example Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of ancient Israel. He revealed himself as the God of Israel. More than that, we know him as the God of Jesus. How is God the one of these people of the past, and to be so now too? Where is God? Again and again people go searching for God, going to the internet search and praying Help me God with their keyboard. We search asking God where are you? God is in heaven but he reveals us to us as God the Father, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is good and he has shown his love to us. That’s why this site promotes the love of God as revealed already in what he has done and has been written down for us. I love God and I want the Kingdom of God to come and the will of God to be done in this world and with this world. That’s why I talk all about God, or what might be called theology, the study of God. I want to promote thinking about God, and by focusing on God I want to highlight the benefits of the Bible’s theology for our lives and future as people.